Plans for temporary compound at rec given go-ahead

PLANS for a temporary compound at Winton Recreation Ground have been given the green light by councillors despite residents’ concerns.

Wessex Water will use the site for six months this autumn and winter in order to carry out much-needed flood prevention works at Trafalger Road, Alma Road and Stokewood Road.

However, those living nearby had spoken out against the plans, which will see a site office, welfare unit, two fuel storages and large storage container placed on the site, with claims they had been treated “shabbily”.

The compound will use 50 square metres of the large sports field behind the children’s play area.

During a meeting of Bournemouth Borough Council’s Planning Board last Monday, the proposals were labelled “contrived” by Winton East councillor Pat Oakley.

He said a number of other sites considered by Wessex Water – including an area of Meyrick Park – had not been properly researched.

The councillor argued that the gravel car park at the northern end of Meyrick Park’s central drive would be more suitable, adding: “The reasons why this site [has been deemed] unsuitable are at best exaggerated and at worst spurious.”

Finishing his deputation in objection at the meeting, Cllr Oakley said: “It’s a people’s park. It belongs to the people who use it. They deserve more respect than is contained in this arrogant and contrived document.”

However, he said he supports the flood alleviation scheme.

Cllr Lynda Price said the Meyrick Park site had been rejected because a bridge standing at around 12 feet high would need to be navigated by Wessex Water lorries, which reach 13 feet.

“These important works will allow flooding issues to finally be alleviated,” she said.

A drop-in session organised for residents took place last Wednesday – even though the application had already been granted.

A Wessex Water spokesperson said a number of locations were considered for the compound.

Of the eight councillors at the meeting, seven were in favour of the application, with two against.

The works are due to begin on October 27, and must be complete by April 19.

Comments (9)

"Of the eight councillors at the meeting, seven were in favour of the application, with two against." 7 + 2 = 9 not 8.

That's the trouble with just using a spell checker, the cannot add!!!!

Good old echo - always on the ball.
"Of the eight councillors at the meeting, seven were in favour of the application, with two against." 7 + 2 = 9 not 8.
That's the trouble with just using a spell checker, the cannot add!!!!Roger of Bournemouth

&quot;Of the eight councillors at the meeting, seven were in favour of the application, with two against." 7 + 2 = 9 not 8.

That's the trouble with just using a spell checker, the cannot add!!!!

That's the trouble with just using a calculator ,the cannot spell !!!! Lol :)

[quote][p][bold]Roger of Bournemouth[/bold] wrote:
Good old echo - always on the ball.
"Of the eight councillors at the meeting, seven were in favour of the application, with two against." 7 + 2 = 9 not 8.
That's the trouble with just using a spell checker, the cannot add!!!![/p][/quote]That's the trouble with just using a calculator ,the cannot spell !!!! Lol :)retry69

I would like to see the residents around Winton rec having more influence on how this site is used, managed and developed. For something gifted to the public, the access to and control of the grounds and buildings isn't at all clear to me and I have lived nearby for many years. Earlier in the year I offered to make lots of coloured chalks available to kids so that they could make designs on the tarmac areas near the beach and was told that I would need to pay over £100 to the council for a formal application of an event with all the trapping of risk assessments and clear up processes etc etc. When I said that this was going to kill the idea dead and suggested Winton Rec instead, the council said I would need to adhere to the same process. Sorry kids of Winton and Charminster , you van have a pile of gravel and trucks on your play field but no chalks to play with this year. Thank you Bournemouth Council, I am sure this really reflects the intentions of the Earl of Malmesbury when he gave us this land.

I would like to see the residents around Winton rec having more influence on how this site is used, managed and developed. For something gifted to the public, the access to and control of the grounds and buildings isn't at all clear to me and I have lived nearby for many years. Earlier in the year I offered to make lots of coloured chalks available to kids so that they could make designs on the tarmac areas near the beach and was told that I would need to pay over £100 to the council for a formal application of an event with all the trapping of risk assessments and clear up processes etc etc. When I said that this was going to kill the idea dead and suggested Winton Rec instead, the council said I would need to adhere to the same process. Sorry kids of Winton and Charminster , you van have a pile of gravel and trucks on your play field but no chalks to play with this year. Thank you Bournemouth Council, I am sure this really reflects the intentions of the Earl of Malmesbury when he gave us this land.Stuart_Lane

Whats the difference between the motorist fined in St James's square with the pretence being the safety of children and taking over this recreation ground for heavy lorries to trundle around when the children may be playing a few meters away, will all these lorries be fined in case they put childrens lives at risk.

Whats the difference between the motorist fined in St James's square with the pretence being the safety of children and taking over this recreation ground for heavy lorries to trundle around when the children may be playing a few meters away, will all these lorries be fined in case they put childrens lives at risk.penhalereturns

penhalereturns wrote:
Whats the difference between the motorist fined in St James's square with the pretence being the safety of children and taking over this recreation ground for heavy lorries to trundle around when the children may be playing a few meters away, will all these lorries be fined in case they put childrens lives at risk.

7m x 7m hardly takes over the whole recreation ground does it ?

[quote][p][bold]penhalereturns[/bold] wrote:
Whats the difference between the motorist fined in St James's square with the pretence being the safety of children and taking over this recreation ground for heavy lorries to trundle around when the children may be playing a few meters away, will all these lorries be fined in case they put childrens lives at risk.[/p][/quote]7m x 7m hardly takes over the whole recreation ground does it ?ragj195

&quot;Of the eight councillors at the meeting, seven were in favour of the application, with two against." 7 + 2 = 9 not 8.

That's the trouble with just using a spell checker, the cannot add!!!!

That's the trouble when the Echo employ monkeys instead of proper journalists to save cash.

[quote][p][bold]Roger of Bournemouth[/bold] wrote:
Good old echo - always on the ball.
"Of the eight councillors at the meeting, seven were in favour of the application, with two against." 7 + 2 = 9 not 8.
That's the trouble with just using a spell checker, the cannot add!!!![/p][/quote]That's the trouble when the Echo employ monkeys instead of proper journalists to save cash.Minty Fresh